1: \documentclass[twoside]{dis04}

2: \usepackage{amssymb,citesort,epsfig}

3: \def\runauthor{Stefan Kretzer}

4: \def\shorttitle{Strangeness Asymmetry}

5: 

6: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}

7: 

8: \def\NCA{\em Nuovo Cimento}

9: \def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods}

10: \def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}

11: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}

12: \def\PLB{{\em Phys. Lett.}  B}

13: \def\PRL{\em Phys. Rev. Lett.}

14: \def\PRD{{\em Phys. Rev.} D}

15: \def\ZPC{{\em Z. Phys.} C}

16: \def\JHEP{\em JHEP}

17: 

18: \begin{document}

19: 

20: \title{Neutrino-Production of Charm and 

21: the Strangeness Asymmetry of the Nucleon

22: }

23: 

24: \author{Stefan Kretzer}

25: 

26: \address{Physics Department and

27: RIKEN-BNL Research Center,\\ 

28: Brookhaven National Laboratory,

29: Upton, New York 11973, USA}

30: 

31: \maketitle

32: 

33: \abstracts{Interest in the strange nucleon sea 

34: has been renewed when it was realized that

35: the  strangeness asymmetry $s^-=s-\bar{s}$ plays

36: a prominent role in the interpretation of the 

37: NuTeV weak mixing angle anomaly. I review the NLO QCD

38: calculation of the neutrino-production of opposite-sign 

39: dimuons as the experimental signature of the strange quark

40: parton density. Results from a recent CTEQ fit are presented 

41: and discussed with respect to their stability under NLO corrections

42: and their impact on the NuTeV measurement.}

43: 

44: 

45: \section{Introduction: Sea Quarks}

46: If the sea quarks of the nucleon could be

47: considered as ``resolved gluons'', 

48: they 

49: %were to 

50: would inherit the gluon's flavour blindness and 

51: CP conjugation symmetry; i.e.

52: \begin{equation}\label{eq:naive}

53: \left. {\bar u}(x) \right|_{k_\perp^2 > \mu^2} =

54: \left.{\bar d}(x) \right|_{k_\perp^2 > \mu^2}=

55: \left.{\bar s}(x) \right|_{k_\perp^2 > \mu^2}=

56: \left. s(x) \right|_{k_\perp^2 > \mu^2}\ \ , 

57: \end{equation}

58: where the restriction on $k_\perp$ phase space 

59: generically denotes some perturbative cut-off.

60: For heavy quarks, it seems that the phenomenology 

61: of heavy quark

62: production works reasonably well under the assumption that

63: the heavy quark masses act as physical cut-offs in the

64: perturbative regime ($m_Q > \mu$). 

65: This is certainly not true for  

66: light quarks, however, where there will necessarily be

67: contributions from $k_\perp^2 < \mu^2$

68: that do not respect Eq.~(\ref{eq:naive}). 

69: It has been firmly established already that

70: \begin{equation}\label{eq:asymuds}

71: {\bar u}(x) \neq {\bar d}(x) \neq {\bar s}(x) 

72: \end{equation}

73: and it remains to be settled by which amount the 

74: strange sea quark and anti-quark

75: distributions differ:

76: \begin{equation}\label{eq:asyms}

77: s^-(x) \equiv (s-\bar{s})(x) \neq 0\ \ \ .

78: \end{equation}

79: Here and throughout I am avoiding the 

80: notion sometimes found in the literature 

81: of (flavour or CP) symmetry ``violation''; there is no symmetry 

82: breaking implied by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:asymuds}), (\ref{eq:asyms})

83: [e.g.~CP conjugation turns $s(x)$ into ${\bar s}_{\bar p}(x)$

84: -- the anti-strange sea of the anti-proton] and it 

85: would rather be a puzzle if these were 

86: exact equalities than inequalities to some degree. 

87: A broad literature on model calculations 

88: (see e.g.~\cite{models}) of the the sea quark 

89: boundary conditions (at $\mu$)

90: covers fascinating approaches to

91: non-perturbative dynamics ranging from light-cone wave functions 

92: over meson cloud models to the chiral quark soliton model. 

93: Here I restrict myself to the observation that 

94: the inequality (\ref{eq:asyms}) seems unavoidable 

95: and will look at data on neutrino-production of charm 

96: \begin{equation}\label{eq:charmcc}

97: \nu_\mu\ s\ \rightarrow c\ \mu^- \ \ \ \& 

98: \ \ \ {\bar \nu}_\mu\  {\bar s}\ \rightarrow {\bar c}\ \mu^+ 

99: \end{equation} 

100: to quantify if the amount can be significant. The experimental 

101: signature of the process (\ref{eq:charmcc}) are opposite sign 

102: dimuons (the second muon stemming from the charm decay)

103: in an active target \cite{CN};

104: I will next give an

105: overview of the corresponding QCD calculations.

106:  

107: 

108: 

109: \section{Neutrino-Production of Charm at NLO}

110: Chromodynamic corrections to the inclusive charm production process

111: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:charmcc}) 

112: were first calculated 

113: %(before the advent of algebraic manipulation software)

114: more than 20 years ago \cite{gotts}, a re-calculation e.g.~in \cite{gkr1}

115: fixes typos and provides modern ${\overline{\rm MS}}$

116: conventions which are also identical to 

117: the $m_s \rightarrow 0$ limit of the corresponding 

118: NLO corrections \cite{ks} in the ACOT scheme \cite{acotcc}.

119: In order to meet the real world experimental requirements 

120: of applying acceptance corrections to data \cite{CN}

121: taken with non-ideal detectors, differential NLO distributions

122: were calculated in \cite{gkr2} and \cite{disco} that provide

123: the charm hadron (D meson) kinematics in terms of the fragmentation

124: $z$ variable and rapidity $\eta$. The $d \sigma / dx dy dz d\eta$ 

125: code DISCO \cite{disco} exists as an interface to the NuTeV MC 

126: event generator.

127: 

128: For detailed NLO results I have to refer the reader

129: to the original articles listed above. 

130: In this short write-up I have to

131: restrict myself to an itemized summary: 

132: \begin{itemize}

133: \item[(i)] The NLO calculations all agree 

134: (some early discrepancies have been clarified).

135: \item[(ii)] For the fixed target kinematics under investigation, the NLO 

136: corrections to the LO process are modest, no bigger than 

137: ${\cal{O}}(\lesssim 20\%)$.

138: \end{itemize}

139: 

140: \section{CTEQ Fit}

141: Typical results of a recent CTEQ global data

142: analysis \cite{DimuonFitting} that includes

143: the dimuon data in \cite{CN} are shown in 

144: Fig.~\ref{fig:sasym}.

145: \begin{figure}[t]

146: %\vspace{-2cm}

147: \epsfig{figure=StrAsym1FH.2.eps,width=6cm}

148: \epsfig{figure=MomAsym2.2.eps,width=6cm}

149: %\vspace{-2cm}

150: \caption{Representative results of the CTEQ strangeness

151: asymmetry analysis.\label{fig:sasym}}

152: \end{figure}

153: An essential constraint on these fits is the 

154: sum rule

155: \begin{equation}

156: \int \left[s(x)-\overline{s}(x)\right] dx = 0 \, ,

157: \label{eq:strnumsumrule}

158: \end{equation}

159: and a stable tendency of the fit is to realize the constraint

160: through a change of sign from negative to positive with

161: increasing $x$, resulting in a positive 

162: second moment integral

163: \begin{equation}

164: \left[ S^{-}\right] \equiv

165: \int x \left[ s(x)-{\bar{s}}(x)\right] dx \; .

166: \label{eq:mom2}

167: \end{equation}

168: Eq.~(\ref{eq:mom2}) is not overly sensitive to the low-$x$ ambiguities

169: visible in Fig.~\ref{fig:sasym} -- compare the number

170: asymmetry on the left plot with the momentum asymmetry on the right.

171: It is the second moment

172: (which is not among the local quark operators 

173: probed in DIS) that the NuTeV anomaly is mostly 

174: sensitive to, through an approximately linear 

175: relation between $\sin^{2}\theta_{W}$ and $[S^-]$

176: that was first derived in \cite{davidson}.

177: 

178: Note that the results in Fig.~\ref{fig:sasym}

179: have been obtained by a fit that neglects the 

180: NLO corrections discussed in the previous section

181: for consistency with the acceptance corrections that were applied

182: to the data \cite{CN} based on a LO model.

183: At worst, the CTEQ fit procedure constitutes a LO fit

184: with spurious higher order terms from the 

185: evolution and correlation with the global data that are otherwise

186: described to NLO accuracy. However,

187: we do find the results to be very stable under NLO corrections 

188: and the uncertainty limit on $[S^-]$ below is considerably broader 

189: than the NLO effects. Final NLO results

190: will have to await a certified update of the data 

191: \cite{CN} where acceptance effects are

192: corrected based on the NLO theory \cite{disco}.

193: 

194: At this conference, P.~Spentzouris for the NuTeV collaboration

195: has presented \cite{spentz} results from a fit that is based on the calculations

196: \cite{gkr1,disco} and uses the data \cite{CN} that are also included

197: in the CTEQ analysis. While the

198: results are within our limits (\ref{eq:bounds}) below, 

199: it remains to be understood why 

200: they display a qualitative preference for a

201: change of sign from positive to negative and, accordingly, a negative

202: $[S^-]$. The issue is currently investigated jointly by NuTeV and CTEQ.

203: 

204: \section{Impact on the NuTeV Anomaly}

205: 

206: By the Lagrangian multiplier method one finds

207: a central value $[S^-] \simeq 0.002$ and 

208: conservative bounds

209: \begin{equation}\label{eq:bounds}

210: -0.001 < [S^-] < 0.004\ \ \ .

211: \end{equation}

212: As described e.g.~in Ref.~\cite{davidson,nuprl} this translates into

213: a shift

214: \begin{equation}

215: -0.005 <  \delta (\sin^{2}\theta_{W}) < +0.001

216: \end{equation}

217: in $\sin^{2}\theta_{W}$ as measured in neutrino

218: scattering where there has been a 

219: $3\,\sigma$ discrepancy between the NuTeV result \cite{nuanom}

220: and the world average of other measurements of $\sin ^{2}\theta_{\mathrm{W}}$.

221: The shift in $\sin^{2}\theta_{W}$

222: corresponding to the central fit bridges a substantial part 

223: ($\sim 1.5 \sigma$) of the original 

224: $3\,\sigma$ discrepancy.

225: For PDF sets with a shift toward the negative end, such as $-0.004$,

226: the discrepancy is reduced to less than 

227: $1\,\sigma $.  On the other hand, for PDF sets with a shift toward the

228: positive end, such as $+0.001$, the discrepancy remains. For

229: related discussions, see also the 

230: contributions \cite{spentz,others} to these proceedings.

231: 

232: 

233: \section{Conclusions}

234: Neutrino-production of charm is well understood in QCD and

235: it provides a direct handle on the strange sea asymmetry. 

236: This last undetermined asymmetry in the unpolarized quark sea

237: is bound to be non-zero but it is hard 

238: to quantify or even gauge for its significance in practice.

239: A model independent global parton structure analysis can

240: discriminate between models of non-perturbative strong interaction.

241: Recently, the observation was made 

242: that the non-perturbative effects may have to be  

243: disentangled from perturbative physics at the 3-loop level \cite{3loop}.

244: Apart from these interesting

245: issues in QCD phenomenology, 

246: limits on the second moment $[S^-]$ provide an essential 

247: systematic uncertainty in the NuTeV measurement of the weak mixing 

248: angle, which shows a $3 \sigma$ discrepancy with the 

249: standard model. The results of this study within their

250: uncertainty limits suggest that

251: the new dimuon data, the Weinberg angle measurement,

252: and other global data sets used in QCD parton structure

253: analysis can all be consistent within the standard model of

254: particle physics. 

255: 

256: 

257: \section*{Acknowledgments}

258: The results presented here have been obtained in collaborations 

259: \cite{gkr1,gkr2,disco,nuprl,DimuonFitting,ks} 

260: with J.~Huston, M.~Gl\"{u}ck, H.L.~Lai, D.~Mason, P.~Nadolsky, 

261: F.~Olness, J.~Owens, J.~Pumplin, M.H.~Reno, E.~Reya, 

262: I.~Schienbein, D.~Stump and W.-K.~Tung.

263: Participation at DIS04 financed by 

264: RIKEN-BNL; work supported by DOE 

265: contract No.~DE-AC02-98CH10886 and RIKEN-BNL.

266: 

267: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

268: %

269: \bibitem{models}

270: S.J.~Brodsky, B.-Q.~Ma,

271: Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B381}, 317 (1996);

272: A.I.~Signal and A.W.~Thomas, Phys.~Lett.{\bf B191}, 205 (1987);

273: F.G.~Cao and A.I.~Signal,

274: Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B559}, 229 (2003);

275: M.~Wakamatsu, 

276: Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D} 67, 034005 (2003), 

277: and references therein.

278: %

279: \bibitem{CN}

280: CCFR and NuTeV Collab.~(M.~Goncharov {\it et al.}), Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D64},

281: 112006 (2001); NuTeV Collab.~(M.~Tzanov {\it et al.}), {\tt

282: hep-ex/0306035}.

283: %

284: \bibitem{gotts}

285: T.~Gottschalk, Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf {23}} (1981) 56

286: %

287: \bibitem{gkr1}

288: M.~Gl\"{u}ck, S.~Kretzer and E.~Reya,

289: Phys.~Lett.~B {\bf 380}, 171 (1996); B {\bf 405}, 391 (1996) (E).

290: %

291: \bibitem{ks}

292: S.~Kretzer, I.~Schienbein,

293: Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D} 58, 094035 (1998).

294: %

295: \bibitem{acotcc}

296: M.A.G.~Aivazis, F.I.~Olness, W.-K.~Tung,

297: Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~65, 2339 (1990). 

298: %

299: \bibitem{gkr2}

300: M.~Gl\"{u}ck, S.~Kretzer and E.~Reya,

301: {\bf B} 398, 381 (1997); {\bf B} 405, 392 (1997) (E).

302: %

303: \bibitem{disco}

304: S.~Kretzer, D.~Mason and F.I.~Olness, 

305: Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D} 65, 074010 (2002).

306: %

307: \bibitem{DimuonFitting}

308: F.~Olness, J.~Pumplin, D.~Stump, J.~Huston, P.~Nadolsky, H.L.~Lai, S.~Kretzer, 

309: J.F.~Owens, W.K.~Tung, {\tt hep-ph/0312323}. 

310: %

311: \bibitem{davidson}

312: S.~Davidson, S.~Forte, P.~Gambino, N.~Rius, A.~Strumia,

313: JHEP {\bf 0202}, 037, 2002.

314: %

315: \bibitem{spentz}

316: P.~Spentzouris, these proceedings.

317: %

318: \bibitem{nuprl}

319: S.~Kretzer, F.~Olness, J.~Pumplin, M.H.~Reno and D.~Stump,

320: Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~93, 041802 (2004).

321: %

322: \bibitem{nuanom}

323: NuTeV Collaboration, G.P.~Zeller {\it et al.},

324: Phys.~Rev.Lett.~{\bf 88}, 091802  (2002).

325: %

326: \bibitem{others}

327: Contributions to these proceedings by 

328: K.~Diener,  S.~Kumano, and R.~Thorne.

329: %

330: \bibitem{3loop}

331: S.~Catani, D.~de Florian, G.~Rodrigo and W.~Vogelsang,

332: {\tt hep-ph/0404240}.

333: %

334: \end{thebibliography}

335: 

336: \end{document}

337: